I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.
No. Second hand XBox1s will not be as cheap as second hand playstations precisely because you need the old consoles to play the old games! They're not obsolete as soon as you've upgraded..
is an MP3 CD player.. just pop in a different CD-R each day, and you're gold. Sure, it's bigger than an iPod, or even a creative jukebox 3 if you lug 10 CD-Rs along with it, but it's dirt cheap. Did I say cheap? And dirt?
it is moderately well known that data above and beyond SMTPE timecode is frequently embedded in lines 18 through, I think it is 27, in your average NTSC video frame. if you have an older TV with horizontal hold controls, roll the picture down a little and watch the black line dance above the picture.
this is, among other things, how Panasonic VCRs can automatically set their clocks when you switch them to the local PBS channel.
all you have to do is put a dupe serial number in that retrace bar's timespace, between the horizontal sync pulses, and you've tagged the tape with a unique number.
it's a little harder to blur these out, because you have to replace the information or you break picture sync, putting an ugly hook in the top of the picture.
Screeners are on DVD, not tapes. Those empty sync lines are still there on the NTSC output signal, but there's no metadata in them; metadata is stored differently on DVDs. It's one of them digital pixelajig thingamajugs..
Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection.
I don't know what kind of dope you're smoking, but it must be good stuff. Copyright always applies, published or not.
The word "secret" refers to the content, not the "tangible" form. Let's say you have a secret; "Dear diary, last night I robbed the 7-11." If I find your diary and rephrase that secret - as in "The 7-11 was robbed by taustin last night" - that's bona fide freedom of information right there.
Obviously in the case of CSS the DeCSS implementation wasn't a direct lift of any existing code; it was reverse-engineered, and not copied from existing code.
Freedom of information(gathering) is one of the basic tenets of democracy; without it, there is no free press. Of course, there are always companies looking to infringe upon it, even to the extent of pushing for laws that establish so-called "database rights" or pretending that trade secrets are secret when they're not secret any more.
Also note that the US government has a lot of files that are secret, but not copyright protected.
IANAL but I belief this is a case of "cattus ex sacculo est". (the cat's out the bag)
Windows Media is a robust system for music and video quality
In what way exactly? Its audio codecs add positively nothing to what's out there, its video codecs may be slightly ahead of the curve compared to standards-based mpeg 4, but nothing to sneeze at compared to DivX or any of the other high quality lowbitrate codecs. The default settings in their encoders encourage producing crappy "streaming" video files which don't allow for fastforwarding or reversing (unless you re-encode them), I haven't had much luck with the container formats (ASF and WMV files always end up giving me trouble somehow, even if it's just getting the right player to open them).. And don't get me started on streaming stuff on webpages which won't open in a separate player, way too much UI going on, again no ffwd/rwd - all other streaming video gear (yes, QT, winamp, and even real) are much better (though real has even more stupid ads embedded in it).
It's no wonder that most films on kazaa end up as divx encoded.avi files (and the kazaahounds have the widest possible choice of codecs since they don't even pay any license fees), (S)VCD being number two (for interoperability with DVD players)..
I can go for days of intensively downloading "funny movies" from weblogs without seeing a single good quality ASF/WMV, but see hundreds of just fine MPEG, AVI(typically DIVX) and MOV (yes, apple quicktime, usually sorensen) files.
If anyone knows what's so good about windows media files, please tell me.. Seriously..
The SunPCI III is the most innovative piece of computer hardware I have ever seen. Put simply, it's a small AMD-based computer built into a single PCI card -- it actually has an Athlon XP 1600+ processor, an onboard AGP 8X graphics chip, onboard 10/100 LAN and two DDR slots which in my test machine were populated with two 512MB modules. This machine within a machine is run through the SunPCI software and is started through a premade startup script that was placed in my default user's home directory. Run the script and the SunPCI card comes to life, booting whatever OS is loaded on it -- in this case, Windows XP Professional. That means that you can have Windows XP Pro running in a window in CDE (the standard UNIX desktop environment) or on a separate monitor that can be connected to the SunPCI card itself. T
Innovative? Didn't apple already do this ages ago?
It's very hard to top Compaq for the worst possible hardware, worst possible support, worst ownership experience, worst batch of proprietary hardware...in "consumer grade" products.
Your choice of OS doesn't make your system secure. What makes a system secure is a user that has a clue.
Not ALL security risks are PIBKAC (Problem Is Between Keyboard And Chair).. I'd say stamping out the remaining ones is what secure software is all about..
Like you, I've not had a Virus in countless years. I don't get spam, My system has no spyware, or adware or web browsing issues (Firebird rules!)
So you attribute your system security in part to software? How queer.. You should be able to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in a "clueful" manner and it would never have any security issues, right?
The OP is right in one thing; he doesn't have to worry about a lot of things. Personally, I'm worried about things like COM listening to every damn IP on the planet instead of localhost or 192.168.0.0/24. That means I have to run a firewall.. I worry about spyware; used to be you could stick to the trusted download sites like tucows and download stuff you knew didn't contain crap (in the day, virusses). Now I'm not so sure any more, after I got my system infected from a "trusted" download.. (And yeah, occasionaly you use a computer with, shock, horror, new software..)
I worry about my mom's computer even more. I needn't fret as much if she were on a more secure and/or less targeted system.
Try educating your mom. Or even better, mine. There's a limit to what miracles you can perform, trust me.
Great idea! Because you could "mail" the code directly to a a third party secure server and have some legal backup.
The timestamp only uses the hash -- which prevents your precious tradesecrets from leaking.
OK...can I mail this post so this can't be patented out from under us?
The PGP timestamping service is ample prior art for the timestamping of hashes. But some random geek is more likely to be doubted in court than the USPS (or a tech savvy notary public for that matter), which is why it's good they're getting in on this..
You know, using such a service to put a date on your sourcecode is a good idea in case you ever end up having to prove when you first coded it (or at least, had it in your possesion); for example, if you need to go after a company stealing your code (GPL non-compliance) or if a company comes after you (SCO?).
Back in the day, micropayments for online content were the norm. Any one remember compuserve? They had a captive audience with accounts, tons of "premium" services including freebies, and it didn't catch on too well.
Even scientific publishers are having more success selling subscriptions (per seat/site license) than pay-per-view. Cable operators are having difficulty making PPV work, as well.
Let's face it; people are cheapskates and publishers are greedy. That's why things are either free or much too expensive.
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
That actually makes it worse; HP is not only lying about the GPU, HP is passing of their laptop as a AGP 8X machine since sticking a 9200 in an AGP 4X machine is a dumb-ass configuration (it may work, but not up to spec). Since the comparative cost of a GPU is much lower than that of the rest of the laptop, that's the bigger lie. You can't legally pass off a motor-bike as a 4 Wheel Drive last time I checked.
The trailer seems to have an awful lot of CG in it that appears to NOT be in-game. The screenshots and in-game CG look very nice, although they're at tiny resolutions..
Why does that soldier's helmet say "ARSE"? Did any one else notice that?
construx was the bestest construction toy ever.. Shame that it's not around anymore. It was much better for making anything robotic, though it did lack a computerized control module and the sensors that mindstorms has.
They're still sold on ebay of course.. I don't know why fisher-price dumped the product instead of expanding the range with more robotic-like components.
"One day we may perfect a machine that reads people's mind, and at such a time a hypothesis as this may enter the realm of (dis)provability."
No, even if the author didn't have a deeper meaning in mind, that doesn't mean that, when read, the story won't bring a deeper meaning in to the mind of a reader.
And since we cannot read minds, you can't prove that. Which is what the bit you quoted was saying. Perhaps in your mind it's saying something completely different, but I have no way of reading your mind, so maybe you're being deliberately obtuse to throw me off.:-P
i think you're conflating the motivations of the author with the interpretations that people derive from his works. any statements regarding the provability of "deeper meanings" in literary works is inherently a meaningless statement, because by definition, the interpretive act is something that cannot be held to a verification scheme of "proof".
I replied to a post that invoked what Tolkien supposedly had said. No one has come forward with quotes. So that post appears to have stated a falsehood.
There may be a host of other arguments for "deeper significance", but when you invoke authority (i.e. Tolkien) be prepared to dig up the quote, and prove that the authority wasn't just talking bull. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and that doesn't prove anything.
the question isn't "IS there a deeper meaning?" it's simply, "CAN THERE BE a deeper meaning?". it's a claim of potentiality, not actuality, and the mere presence of one particular actualization is enough to "prove" the singular potential. so, to revise your statement, the proof that his texts CAN have deeper meanings is because for some people, they do.
Which cannot be disproven, since any one can claim to see deeper meaning, and we'd be none the wiser if they're just making it up. So we're not talking science here. Which is precisely the point the author of the article this discussion is attached to is making, however crude he may do so.
Of course, one day we may perfect a machine that reads people's mind, and at such a time a hypothesis as this may enter the realm of (dis)provability.
For now the hypothesis; "[it is possible that]/[some] people claim to perceive deeper meaning in Tolkien's text" is both disprovable and true, but doesn't say that much, really. It would be scientific though, and even I accept it as fact. So there.
"A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today hes Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow hes Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that hes something else. These people change their identity all the time. A pictures worth a thousand words."
Wow. Clearly some people have something really important invested in the idea that Tolkien's books have to be "taken at face value."
This idea is ridiculous. The echoes of so many modern and age-old problems of mankind in these works, especially those we know Tolkien felt very strongly about, are deafeningly loud, and anyone who doesn't hear them is missing a great deal of what gives those books enduring significance.
So, the proof that his texts have deeper meaning, is because they do?
Can it be even disproven that his texts have a deeper meaning? I certainly can't disprove Creationism, what with there being an almighty God in that theory, and that's exactly what makes it anything but science.
Grammar isn't your forte, is it? With a LAN, there typically isn't a "bill". I guess I read better than you write. Of course, your over-sensitive reaction also indicates a humungous sense of humour failure. Most people who find something unfunny just ignore it and move on, they don't overreact like a petulant child!
On to the ad hominems, are we? If you listeners are on a congested LAN (note how I'm not saying this LAN is not somehow inter-networked, as I'm assuming it is) and you're streaming from the internet, you (the broadcaster) still has a bandwidth bill to pay.
Your posting didn't seem at all unfunny to me, just really dumb, which is actually quite amusing.
If theory A correctly models a proper superset of the situations that theory B does, then it is obvious that theory A is more complete and thus more valid than theory B. But suppose there is another theory C which is also models a subset of the situations that theory A does, but a somewhat different subset than theory B. How do we determine the relative validity of models B and C? This is exacly the case that we have with general relativity and quantum mechanics - alternate incomplete truths.
No, alternate incomplete models. The truths are the empirical data that are used to test them and which make the fact that the models are incomplete apparent. A model is just a model, not truth. Depending on which model works best in the cases you're interested in, one can be said to be better than the other, even if they are just as bad as each other at explaining the general case (e.g. get equivalent numbers of special cases wrong). If they're just as accurate, you pick the simplest one. That's a matter of choice, not truth.
Nonetheless, Tolkein did have "deeper significance" in mind in writing his works.
Care to quote him what? Or did he just have people searching for "deeper significance" in mind, rather than "deeper significance" itself? If he never spoke as to what his intended "deeper signigicance" was there's no way to (dis)prove his intent, let alone whether it's just a wind-up to appear more literary or artsy.
"... more people can listen to it, even on their congested at-work LANs, and if you don't attract more people, then at least you cut your bandwidth bill in half."
You have to pay for your LAN bandwidth at work? Wow! You do have tough IT department. Most places I've worked the IT department is a continual expense that managers don't understand. Your's must be profitable!
Reading must be hard. YOU might attract more people (THEM) on congested LANs, and if YOU don't attract THEM then YOUR (i.e. not THEM who are on a congested LAN) bandwidth bill is lower. Notice how YOU is not THEM? Kthnx.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.
No. Second hand XBox1s will not be as cheap as second hand playstations precisely because you need the old consoles to play the old games! They're not obsolete as soon as you've upgraded..
is an MP3 CD player.. just pop in a different CD-R each day, and you're gold. Sure, it's bigger than an iPod, or even a creative jukebox 3 if you lug 10 CD-Rs along with it, but it's dirt cheap. Did I say cheap? And dirt?
it is moderately well known that data above and beyond SMTPE timecode is frequently embedded in lines 18 through, I think it is 27, in your average NTSC video frame. if you have an older TV with horizontal hold controls, roll the picture down a little and watch the black line dance above the picture.
this is, among other things, how Panasonic VCRs can automatically set their clocks when you switch them to the local PBS channel.
all you have to do is put a dupe serial number in that retrace bar's timespace, between the horizontal sync pulses, and you've tagged the tape with a unique number.
it's a little harder to blur these out, because you have to replace the information or you break picture sync, putting an ugly hook in the top of the picture.
Screeners are on DVD, not tapes. Those empty sync lines are still there on the NTSC output signal, but there's no metadata in them; metadata is stored differently on DVDs. It's one of them digital pixelajig thingamajugs..
Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection.
I don't know what kind of dope you're smoking, but it must be good stuff. Copyright always applies, published or not.
The word "secret" refers to the content, not the "tangible" form. Let's say you have a secret; "Dear diary, last night I robbed the 7-11." If I find your diary and rephrase that secret - as in "The 7-11 was robbed by taustin last night" - that's bona fide freedom of information right there.
Obviously in the case of CSS the DeCSS implementation wasn't a direct lift of any existing code; it was reverse-engineered, and not copied from existing code.
Freedom of information(gathering) is one of the basic tenets of democracy; without it, there is no free press. Of course, there are always companies looking to infringe upon it, even to the extent of pushing for laws that establish so-called "database rights" or pretending that trade secrets are secret when they're not secret any more.
Also note that the US government has a lot of files that are secret, but not copyright protected.
IANAL but I belief this is a case of "cattus ex sacculo est". (the cat's out the bag)
Windows Media is a robust system for music and video quality
.avi files (and the kazaahounds have the widest possible choice of codecs since they don't even pay any license fees), (S)VCD being number two (for interoperability with DVD players)..
In what way exactly? Its audio codecs add positively nothing to what's out there, its video codecs may be slightly ahead of the curve compared to standards-based mpeg 4, but nothing to sneeze at compared to DivX or any of the other high quality lowbitrate codecs. The default settings in their encoders encourage producing crappy "streaming" video files which don't allow for fastforwarding or reversing (unless you re-encode them), I haven't had much luck with the container formats (ASF and WMV files always end up giving me trouble somehow, even if it's just getting the right player to open them).. And don't get me started on streaming stuff on webpages which won't open in a separate player, way too much UI going on, again no ffwd/rwd - all other streaming video gear (yes, QT, winamp, and even real) are much better (though real has even more stupid ads embedded in it).
It's no wonder that most films on kazaa end up as divx encoded
I can go for days of intensively downloading "funny movies" from weblogs without seeing a single good quality ASF/WMV, but see hundreds of just fine MPEG, AVI(typically DIVX) and MOV (yes, apple quicktime, usually sorensen) files.
If anyone knows what's so good about windows media files, please tell me.. Seriously..
The SunPCI III is the most innovative piece of computer hardware I have ever seen. Put simply, it's a small AMD-based computer built into a single PCI card -- it actually has an Athlon XP 1600+ processor, an onboard AGP 8X graphics chip, onboard 10/100 LAN and two DDR slots which in my test machine were populated with two 512MB modules. This machine within a machine is run through the SunPCI software and is started through a premade startup script that was placed in my default user's home directory. Run the script and the SunPCI card comes to life, booting whatever OS is loaded on it -- in this case, Windows XP Professional. That means that you can have Windows XP Pro running in a window in CDE (the standard UNIX desktop environment) or on a separate monitor that can be connected to the SunPCI card itself. T
Innovative? Didn't apple already do this ages ago?
It's very hard to top Compaq for the worst possible hardware, worst possible support, worst ownership experience, worst batch of proprietary hardware...in "consumer grade" products.
Amen to that, brother.
Your choice of OS doesn't make your system secure. What makes a system secure is a user that has a clue.
Not ALL security risks are PIBKAC (Problem Is Between Keyboard And Chair).. I'd say stamping out the remaining ones is what secure software is all about..
Like you, I've not had a Virus in countless years. I don't get spam, My system has no spyware, or adware or web browsing issues (Firebird rules!)
So you attribute your system security in part to software? How queer.. You should be able to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in a "clueful" manner and it would never have any security issues, right?
The OP is right in one thing; he doesn't have to worry about a lot of things. Personally, I'm worried about things like COM listening to every damn IP on the planet instead of localhost or 192.168.0.0/24. That means I have to run a firewall.. I worry about spyware; used to be you could stick to the trusted download sites like tucows and download stuff you knew didn't contain crap (in the day, virusses). Now I'm not so sure any more, after I got my system infected from a "trusted" download.. (And yeah, occasionaly you use a computer with, shock, horror, new software..)
I worry about my mom's computer even more. I needn't fret as much if she were on a more secure and/or less targeted system.
Try educating your mom. Or even better, mine. There's a limit to what miracles you can perform, trust me.
Great idea! Because you could "mail" the code directly to a a third party secure server and have some legal backup.
The timestamp only uses the hash -- which prevents your precious tradesecrets from leaking.
OK...can I mail this post so this can't be patented out from under us?
The PGP timestamping service is ample prior art for the timestamping of hashes. But some random geek is more likely to be doubted in court than the USPS (or a tech savvy notary public for that matter), which is why it's good they're getting in on this..
As for automatically backing up code.. CVS?
You know, using such a service to put a date on your sourcecode is a good idea in case you ever end up having to prove when you first coded it (or at least, had it in your possesion); for example, if you need to go after a company stealing your code (GPL non-compliance) or if a company comes after you (SCO?).
They primarily use B&W prints since those are the most stable.
Do they store (important?) color photographs as 4 B&W ones?
Back in the day, micropayments for online content were the norm. Any one remember compuserve? They had a captive audience with accounts, tons of "premium" services including freebies, and it didn't catch on too well.
Even scientific publishers are having more success selling subscriptions (per seat/site license) than pay-per-view. Cable operators are having difficulty making PPV work, as well.
Let's face it; people are cheapskates and publishers are greedy. That's why things are either free or much too expensive.
Just for you information:
Radeon 9000 = AGP 4X
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
Centrino = AGP 4X
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
That actually makes it worse; HP is not only lying about the GPU, HP is passing of their laptop as a AGP 8X machine since sticking a 9200 in an AGP 4X machine is a dumb-ass configuration (it may work, but not up to spec). Since the comparative cost of a GPU is much lower than that of the rest of the laptop, that's the bigger lie.
You can't legally pass off a motor-bike as a 4 Wheel Drive last time I checked.
The trailer seems to have an awful lot of CG in it that appears to NOT be in-game. The screenshots and in-game CG look very nice, although they're at tiny resolutions..
Why does that soldier's helmet say "ARSE"? Did any one else notice that?
He's not a cyborg, unless some of this hardware actually involved surgery or the replacement of biological parts.
I kinda like thinking I'm a cyborg because of my contact lenses. And watch and mobile phone attached to me..
construx was the bestest construction toy ever.. Shame that it's not around anymore. It was much better for making anything robotic, though it did lack a computerized control module and the sensors that mindstorms has.
They're still sold on ebay of course.. I don't know why fisher-price dumped the product instead of expanding the range with more robotic-like components.
"One day we may perfect a machine that reads people's mind, and at such a time a hypothesis as this may enter the realm of (dis)provability."
:-P
No, even if the author didn't have a deeper meaning in mind, that doesn't mean that, when read, the story won't bring a deeper meaning in to the mind of a reader.
And since we cannot read minds, you can't prove that. Which is what the bit you quoted was saying. Perhaps in your mind it's saying something completely different, but I have no way of reading your mind, so maybe you're being deliberately obtuse to throw me off.
Epistemology 101: I think, therefore I am.
I caught on to it in the end ;-) Thanks anyway.
i think you're conflating the motivations of the author with the interpretations that people derive from his works. any statements regarding the provability of "deeper meanings" in literary works is inherently a meaningless statement, because by definition, the interpretive act is something that cannot be held to a verification scheme of "proof".
I replied to a post that invoked what Tolkien supposedly had said. No one has come forward with quotes. So that post appears to have stated a falsehood.
There may be a host of other arguments for "deeper significance", but when you invoke authority (i.e. Tolkien) be prepared to dig up the quote, and prove that the authority wasn't just talking bull. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and that doesn't prove anything.
the question isn't "IS there a deeper meaning?" it's simply, "CAN THERE BE a deeper meaning?". it's a claim of potentiality, not actuality, and the mere presence of one particular actualization is enough to "prove" the singular potential. so, to revise your statement, the proof that his texts CAN have deeper meanings is because for some people, they do.
Which cannot be disproven, since any one can claim to see deeper meaning, and we'd be none the wiser if they're just making it up. So we're not talking science here. Which is precisely the point the author of the article this discussion is attached to is making, however crude he may do so.
Of course, one day we may perfect a machine that reads people's mind, and at such a time a hypothesis as this may enter the realm of (dis)provability.
For now the hypothesis; "[it is possible that]/[some] people claim to perceive deeper meaning in Tolkien's text" is both disprovable and true, but doesn't say that much, really. It would be scientific though, and even I accept it as fact. So there.
"A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today hes Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow hes Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that hes something else. These people change their identity all the time. A pictures worth a thousand words."
O... M... F... G...
Wow. Clearly some people have something really important invested in the idea that Tolkien's books have to be "taken at face value."
This idea is ridiculous. The echoes of so many modern and age-old problems of mankind in these works, especially those we know Tolkien felt very strongly about, are deafeningly loud, and anyone who doesn't hear them is missing a great deal of what gives those books enduring significance.
So, the proof that his texts have deeper meaning, is because they do?
Can it be even disproven that his texts have a deeper meaning? I certainly can't disprove Creationism, what with there being an almighty God in that theory, and that's exactly what makes it anything but science.
Grammar isn't your forte, is it? With a LAN, there typically isn't a "bill". I guess I read better than you write. Of course, your over-sensitive reaction also indicates a humungous sense of humour failure. Most people who find something unfunny just ignore it and move on, they don't overreact like a petulant child!
On to the ad hominems, are we? If you listeners are on a congested LAN (note how I'm not saying this LAN is not somehow inter-networked, as I'm assuming it is) and you're streaming from the internet, you (the broadcaster) still has a bandwidth bill to pay.
Your posting didn't seem at all unfunny to me, just really dumb, which is actually quite amusing.
If theory A correctly models a proper superset of the situations that theory B does, then it is obvious that theory A is more complete and thus more valid than theory B. But suppose there is another theory C which is also models a subset of the situations that theory A does, but a somewhat different subset than theory B. How do we determine the relative validity of models B and C? This is exacly the case that we have with general relativity and quantum mechanics - alternate incomplete truths.
No, alternate incomplete models. The truths are the empirical data that are used to test them and which make the fact that the models are incomplete apparent. A model is just a model, not truth. Depending on which model works best in the cases you're interested in, one can be said to be better than the other, even if they are just as bad as each other at explaining the general case (e.g. get equivalent numbers of special cases wrong). If they're just as accurate, you pick the simplest one. That's a matter of choice, not truth.
Nonetheless, Tolkein did have "deeper significance" in mind in writing his works.
Care to quote him what? Or did he just have people searching for "deeper significance" in mind, rather than "deeper significance" itself? If he never spoke as to what his intended "deeper signigicance" was there's no way to (dis)prove his intent, let alone whether it's just a wind-up to appear more literary or artsy.
"... more people can listen to it, even on their congested at-work LANs, and if you don't attract more people, then at least you cut your bandwidth bill in half."
You have to pay for your LAN bandwidth at work? Wow! You do have tough IT department. Most places I've worked the IT department is a continual expense that managers don't understand. Your's must be profitable!
Reading must be hard. YOU might attract more people (THEM) on congested LANs, and if YOU don't attract THEM then YOUR (i.e. not THEM who are on a congested LAN) bandwidth bill is lower. Notice how YOU is not THEM? Kthnx.